A. On October 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for remodeling construction of the building of the Dawon located in the Daegu-gu Seoul District Office (hereinafter “instant construction”) that the Defendant operated, and completed the instant construction work around January 2016.

B. On October 23, 2015, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 28,00,000,000 as the instant construction cost, respectively, and KRW 23,000,00 on January 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On October 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a construction contract with the instant construction project cost of KRW 52,90,000 (excluding value-added tax) and completed the construction project, including additional construction works of KRW 6,090,000 (excluding value-added tax) at the Defendant’s request.

Nevertheless, the Defendant paid only KRW 28,00,000 on October 23, 2015, and KRW 23,000,000 on January 22, 2016, and thus, the remainder of the construction cost should be paid.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and the Defendant’s agreement on the construction price did not exist before and after the construction.

The additional construction works claimed by the plaintiff are included in the contents of the existing construction works, the plaintiff's service was made, or the construction works were unilaterally performed for the purpose of receiving a large amount of construction costs without the defendant's consent.

The plaintiff did not complete the construction of this case, and many defects occurred in the part constructed by the plaintiff, and the cost of repairing the defects exceeds the construction cost claimed by the plaintiff, and the deduction of the cost does not have the remaining construction cost to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. There is no dispute between the parties to the construction contract of this case, or the following circumstances, which may be acknowledged as having been comprehensively taken into account the entire purport of the pleadings as to the witness E of the first instance trial, namely, the Plaintiff’s execution of construction work equivalent to KRW 52,90,000 at the complaint, and the Defendant also stated as follows.